The legacy of Obama's divisive sanction of hate. The very idea that Obama's Department of Justice would refuse to prosecute the Black Panthers who were threatening voters (with weapons and billy clubs) at the polls on election day 2008 set the tone for the coming insurrection. He campaigned as a unifier. Add that to the long list of big fat Obama lies. Yes, I blame him and the socialist, anarchist Congressional Black Caucus.

This is EXACTLY﻿ why Allen West joined the Congressional Black Caucus.He is was voted in by the Tea Party to make a REAL change in Washington. Democrats had 2 years of total control and didn't propose a single budget. Their "change" is to hate, attack, blame, lie, deny, and eventually dismantle America.They're drilling holes in the Titanic then blaming the Tea Party for kicking them off of the ship. Liberal Fascism is on the rise. Never forgive. Never forget. We have one chance then we sink. (you tube commenter)

You just can't make this stuff up. While Obama sends close to a billion dollars to Hamas, aids the jihad in Libya, abandons our ally in Egypt to help install the Muslim Brotherhood, refuses to prosecute Muslim Brotherhood proxies in the US despite a "mountain of evidence," we are learning that 9/11 Responders will be be screened by FBI's Terrorism Watch List.

WASHINGTON -- A provision in the new 9/11 health bill may be adding insult to injury for people who fell sick after their service in the aftermath of the 2001 Al Qaeda attacks, The Huffington Post has learned.

The tens of thousands of cops, firefighters, construction workers and others who survived the worst terrorist assault in U.S. history and risked their lives in its wake will soon be informed that their names must be run through the FBI’s terrorism watch list, according to a letter obtained by HuffPost.

Any of the responders who are not compared to the database of suspected terrorists would be barred from getting treatment for the numerous, worsening ailments that the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Law was passed to address.

It’s a requirement that was tacked onto the law during the bitter debates over it last year.

The letter from Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, informs medical providers and administrators that they should begin letting patients know before the new program kicks in this July.

“It’s comical at best, and I think it’s an insult to everyone who worked on The Pile and is sick and suffering from 9/11,” said John Feal, a former construction worker who lost half a foot at Ground Zero and runs the advocacy group Fealgood Foundation.

Amb. John Bolton weighs in at the Corner on the poison dwarf's proposed visit to Ground Zero to honor the the 19 martyred Islamakazi terrorists. Would love to see J to the B take a shot at Imajihadman - hey, a girl can dream can't she?

Even though the NYPD has rejected Ahmadinejad's request to
visit Ground Zero, one local TV station is reporting
that he might try to visit anyway, and that if he did, he would be "accompanied
by a Secret Service protective detail, a detail provided to all heads of state
when they visit the United States."

But former U.S. ambassador to theU.N. John Bolton told National Review
Online this morning that the U.S. would be well within its rights as host
country to limit Ahmadinejad's travel:

Under the U.N. participation act and our commitment as the host country, we
have agreed going back to the beginning of the U.N. to let any head of state or
any country that's a member of the U.N. send its officially accredited leaders
and diplomats in to participate in U.N.-related activities. That's a pain in the
neck, frankly, but that's part of the price of being the host country.

What we never gave up was the right to limit their travel outside of Turtle
Bay and wherever their hotel happens to be. [The Iranians] will try to raise a
fuss about that. I'm sure the visit was nothing but propaganda.

Apparently the U.S. government can keep Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero
if it wants to. So why wouldn't it?

Why indeed? The dhimmitude must be stopped. BTW, I will be on with Kevin McCullough on NYC Radio,
WMCA 570 AM - The MuscleHead Revolution talking about Monday's rally.

Join the National Rally to End the Threat Now Monday, September 24

12:00 noon, rain or shine

Dag Hammarskjold Plaza2nd Avenue at 47th Street(across from the United Nations) New York City

I expect every Atlas reader to be there. Now is the time my friends. Now.

Apparently evil mini-me's trip to Ground Zero is off again yest again. This game is disgusting.

The American Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to rescind certain portions of the Military Commissions Act – a move that will draw few headlines, but which holds the potential to do great damage to intelligence agencies, which are vital in the war on terror. Should the practice of giving terrorists access to federal courts be resumed, the Department of Defense would face the choice between protecting the means of gathering intelligence and the sources of intelligence, and letting terrorists go free, or placing the information gathered on the record, and risk aiding terrorists' counter-intelligence efforts.

This is really not a surprise. Many in the new Democratic Party congressional leadership opposed the Military Commissions Act, echoing complaints from human rights groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights and Amnesty International. The Democrats are now tossing this over to their supporters, in essence, seeking to score political points from their supporters – and get positive press from the mainstream media.

How does aiding and abetting the Islamic savages that swear to destroy America score points with voters? This is just plain unfathomable to me.

The problem, of course, is that in the past, criminal trials have led to intelligence being compromised. In the 1995 trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the government's evidence was turned over to his attorneys. At least one of the documents handed over in accordance with rules of discovery ultimately found its way to an al-Qaeda headquarters in the Sudan. That document contained a list of people who were on the government's radar screen – and thus alerted al-Qaeda to the possibility of surveillance told them who we were interested in.

This is a bigger deal than it might sound like. If you know what someone else knows about you, it helps you to figure out how they might have discovered the information. That enables you to take countermeasures, be it feeding disinformation through a source you know is compromised, or by making sure that the snitch is tortured (for information on his intel connections) and killed. Compromising methods of gathering intelligence, and the sources of intelligence, also creates a chilling effect. If a source wants to be extracted, intelligence he might have gathered in the future is lost. The same loss of intelligence happens when a source stops cooperating for fear of exposure, which happened in 1995 after then-Congressman Robert Torricelli burned a CIA source. Cooperation with other intelligence agencies will also suffer – as they act to protect their methods and sources from being exposed.

And what about this poor bastard. You just know it was a leftard in law enforcement that leaked it.

The compromising of intelligence sources and methods of gathering information also makes it more likely that plotted attacks will succeed. A terrorist cell that is conscious of operational security as the result of leaks, and which is dealing with fewer potential snitches, is more likely to evade notice. In essence, they have a better chance at getting lucky – and a terrorist cell planning an attack only needs to get lucky once. The terrorists planning the attack on Fort Dix are the exception – and the next group of terrorists is not going to take their videos to the local Circuit City or Best Buy.

On the contrary, when terrorist cells do not think someone is listening, they are more likely to screw up and attract attention. The more that informants believe they will be protected, the more likely they are to keep snitching on the bad guys. This means there is a better chance for the cops and FBI to get alerted. Considering that these agencies are largely reactive, they can use all the informant tips they can get.

When it comes right down to it, a major battle in the war on terror will be fought in Washington.Al Qaeda could easily end up a big winner by gaining invaluable assistance in counter-intelligence, assistance that the DOD will be forced to provide unless they want terrorists to go free. That is a choice between two very bad options. – Harold C. Hutchison

UPDATE: The Democrat who heads the House Homeland Security Committee has sent an icy
letter to New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, questioning his decision
not to testify before Congress next week about the alleged terror plot to bomb
Kennedy International Airport. More here. hat tip CAN

Further the mainstream media's stunning silence and dismissive reportage: Massive Terrorist Plot! NYT: See Page 30Last night's Democrat debate was short on the enormous consequences of the JFK plot or confronting the threat of radical Islam but overwhelmed with brain numbing concern for universal healthcare and taxing the rich. In the words of the morally ill,
“America no longer has the moral authority in the world anymore” so said the perpetually coiffed $400 haircut -tort lawyer who speaks for the poor at $55K a pop - John Edwards.

3. The fact that you do not know any actual terrorists should not in any way deter you. Necessity is the mother of invention: if you can find the right raw material -- a sad, sick, lonely, drunk, deranged, disgruntled or just plain anti-American Muslim somewhere in the United States -- you can make your very own terrorist.

"Were any of you threatened in any way, specifically for carrying the
Islamberg story?" asked a blogger, who copied Canada Free Press (CFP) last
night.

Robert is Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David
Horowitz Freedom Center, and author of two New York Times bestsellers on Islamic
Jihad.

Brigette is Brigette Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian and Middle East
correspondent, who is Director of American Congress.

Paul Williams, prolific writer and author of the newly released Day of
Islam, wrote a CFP cover story published May 11, detailing a radical Muslim
paramilitary compound that flourishes in upper New York State.

The story, posted by Michael Savage and carried by dozens of blogs, including
www.littlegreenfootballs.com, was virtually ignored by the
mainstream media.

Someone didn't like the story and that someone threatened the life of U.S.
war veteran and blogger Scott Grayban.

The blogger, whose name is being withheld by CFP, hoped flagging the Internet
might protect Grayban's physical safety if someone publicized the two threats
made on his life over the telephone.

That is the reason for this story.

Grayban received two phone calls on Sunday night from a foreigner,
threatening his life.

"The caller used a hacked phone (or internet line) to disguise the location
from which he was calling. (Please see jpeg of record/caller ID attached at
bottom of page).

"The caller told Scott the precise street on which he lives, that he lives
across from an auto shop, that he has a solar panel in his apartment window and
the make of the car he drove to the mall on Saturday."

Someone is following Scott Grayban in Washington State. Yet the local FBI
office told him to call the police. The local police told him to call the FBI
and his phone carrier (Vonage) said there's no way to trace the call.

There might be a way to trace the call with a court order, but it's unlikely
that Grayban could ever get one.

Cold comfort for a man who's being stalked and threatened.

The blogger made the decision to "publicize this threat has occurred" and
sent out an email to ask if anyone else who carried this story has also been
threatened.

No one at CFP, who originally ran the Williams' story, has been threatened.
The writer of this article was unable to reach Paul Williams at his Pennsylvania
home at press time and is convinced that she would have heard from the author if
he had been threatened.

Williams and Northeast Intelligence Director and private investigator Doug
Hagmann, scouted out a Jihadist camp dubbed Islamberg, at the foothills of the
Catskill Mountains on the outskirts of Hancock, New York, last summer.

"Islamberg is not an ideal place for a summer vacation unless, of course, you
are an exponent of the Jihad or a fan of Osama bin Laden," Williams wrote in CFP
on May 11, 2007.

Very few visitors come to Islamberg, where a sentry post has been established
at the base of the hill.

"Islamberg is a branch of Muslims of the Americas Inc., a tax-exempt
organization formed in 1980 by Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, who
refers to himself as "the sixth Sultan Ul Faqr". Gilani has been directly linked
by court documents to Jamaat u-Fuqra or "community of the impoverished", an
organization that seeks to "purify" Islam through violence.

"Islamberg is not as benign as a Buddhist monastery or a Carmelite convent.
Nearly every weekend, neighbors hear sounds of gunfire. Some, including a combat
veteran of the Vietnam War, have heard the bang of small explosives. None of the
neighbors wished to be identified for fear of "retaliation". "We don't even dare
to slow down when we drive by", one resident said. "They own the mountain and
they know it and there is nothing we can do about it but move, and we can't even
do that. Who wants to buy a property near that?"

"Even though Jamaat ul-Fuqra has been involved in terror attacks and sundry
criminal activities, recruited thousands of members from federal and state penal
systems, and appears to be operating paramilitary facilities for militant
Muslims, it remains to be placed on the official US Terror Watch List. On the
contrary, it continues to operate, flourish and expand as a legitimate
nonprofit, tax-deductible charity."

It seems that Williams and company raised a hornet's nest in their visit to
Islamberg and some of the hornets went buzzing all the way to Spokane,
Washington.

Meanwhile the blogger who tipped off CFP about the threats to Scott Grayban,
emailed to say a report was finally taken by Spokane Washington police. The SPD
report number is 07-132-368.

A FORMER beauty title holder has asked the Bureau of Immigration to deport her
estranged Saudi Arabian husband for involvement in a string of cases and for
allegedly having ties to al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the
September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.

In her complaint to the BI, the 1988 Binibining Pilipinas-International said
Bondagjy met with Bin Laden in the Philippines sometime in 1990.

Artadi said Bondagjy was involved with the Muslim World League, which she
described as a Saudi charity organization being sued by the victims of the
September 11, 2001 attacks. She said the organization held office at the Heart
Tower Building on Valero Street, Makati City.

"I was asked to host the dinner for the Muslim World League members in
apartment 20b Twin Towers Condominium Philippines, sometime in 1990, and one of
the guests was Bin Laden. Bondagjy would do recruitment jobs for Bin Laden in
the Philippines," she told the BI.

She added that the Muslim World League's assets and properties, including its
Heart Tower office, had been confiscated by the United States treasury
department for the organization's alleged involvement in terrorist
activities.

Artadi said she was not allowed to be in the living room where Bin Laden and
the other men were present. She stayed in the kitchen that time and only peeked
through the glass window of the kitchen door.

HH: Joined now by Victor
Davis Hanson, one of the country's preeminent military historians, as well
as classicists. Professor Hanson, always a pleasure. Thank you for being
there.[...]VDH: But Hugh, Mohammed Katami just got an honorary degree from the
University of Edinburgh. This is a man who may have been in on the planning of
the blowing up in 1994 of Jews in Argentina, and may be a target of
investigation by the Argentine goverment. So there's something...and he spoke at
the Council of Foreign Relations. There's something wrong in America, and in the
West in general, that we just don't have the ability to identify evil from good.
And there's a large number of people whose worldview, I think, was formed in the
1960's during the Vietnam War, a period of affluence and leisure, and they've
completely forgotten the lessons of their parents that went through the
Depression, World War II. And we're going to be...this generation, I don't want
to us an obscene or a gruff metaphor, but they're sort of like a rat and
a snake, and they're slowly going through the American process, and they're not
aging well. So when we have these outbursts by Al Gore, or these outbursts by
Dick Durbin, or...all of these things are connected. And I think it's a
frustration that most American people have rejected that worldview. And they get
more and more hysterical, and they look for scandal. And then when they're
natural, and they're thinking out loud, we start to get a window into their
soul. And it's pretty bleak what we see.

HH: Has this, Professor Hanson, happened before, where an imperial
power...we're not an imperium, but we have that kind of power. When the world's
only or greatest power self-destructs from within?

VDH: Absolutely. Absolutely. You can read the speeches of Demosthenes in 350
BC. You can read Petronius' Satyricon. It was talking about a bankrupted lead at
Rome who made fun of the legionnaires who were guarding the Rhine and the
Danube, so they could have these lavish feasts back in Rome. You can look at
the illness that was in the British aristocratic society in the 1920's and
'30's, that made fun of people like Churchill. And this is what we, in America,
collectively, have to guard against, that we don't allow these people, these
affluent elites, who are cynical, skeptical, nihilistic, and we can't let them
adjudicate what America is about. And because we all know that the people
overseas that we're fighting, the terrorists, the Islamicists, the
Islamic-facist movements, they find resonance with these people. These people
don't mean to deliberately help them, but their attacks dovetail at a time of
war with the people that we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.

[...]

HH: Victor Davis Hanson, the American military, obviously, was slandered this
week. And they live by a different code than most civilians do, and it's a code
deep in honor. And they're outraged, and I see their e-mails, and I'm sure
you've gotten them as well and read them. And the American media is indifferent
to it. They won't report what they think. They didn't even carry that amazing
picture that you wrote about at Nationalreview.com yesterday. It played in two
out of 520 newspapers surveyed. I've linked it at Hughhewitt.com. Can you
support and purport to admire a military when you won't listen to it, and are
indifferent to what it thinks?

(AINA) -- According to the Assyrian website ankawa.com, a 14 year old Christian Assyrian
boy, Ayad Tariq, from Baqouba, Iraq was decapitated at his work place on October
21.

Ayad Tariq was working his 12 hour shift, maintaining an electric generator,
when a group of disguised Muslim insurgents walked in at the beginning of his
shift shortly after 6 a.m. and asked him for his ID.

According to another employee who witnessed the events, and who hid when he
saw the insurgents approach, the insurgents questioned Ayad after seeing that
his ID stated "Christian", asking if he was truly a "Christian sinner." Ayad
replied "yes, I am Christian but I am not a sinner." The insurgents quickly said
this is a "dirty Christian sinner!" Then they proceeded to each hold one limb,
shouting "Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!" while beheading the boy.

I notice that you published a
report of the meeting last week at NYU on the Moslem Brotherhood. Your report
is, unfortunately, full of inaccuracies. I was one of the platform speakers and
you will find below my speech as it was delivered. Please compare it against the
spiteful and ill-written account from your correspondent. I would be very happy
for you to publish it in its present form or to reply to the ludicrous comments
in your article. Free speech anyone? Letter here

This is what the enemy does. This is their MO. They lie. It echoes ex-Nazi
Hilmar von Campe foreboding remarks at the Walid Shoebat event at Columbia here (audio here) who now lives in Alabama. He was 7 years old in 1933
when the Nazis came to power. He reminded the audience of Josef Goebbels, their chief liar, and the
constant repetition of lies, lies and more lies that infected the national
consciousness. Constant
rhetoric.

The international press cried foul on October 19 after the U.S. denied a visa to a senior Muslim Brotherhood leader. Newsweek, Reuters, ABC News, The National Interest
and other media complained that the “moderate” Muslim Association of
Britain (MAB) founder Kamal Helbawy was barred from appearing at New
York University’s Center for Law and Security. The U.S. also barred entry to Egyptian doctor and MB “guidance counsel” Abd El Monem Abo El Fotouh, who was scheduled to speak in the same discussion on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Helbawy claims to be “moderate.” The U.S. should not prevent “moderates from talking and discussing,” Helbawy stated after being pulled off his flight. El Fotouh is purportedly also temperate.

“At the end of
the day, [Islam and the West] have a set of common humanist values:
justice, freedom, human rights and democracy,”

he told The Economist in September 2003. Arabists consider El Fotouh “one of the brightest stars” of the MB’s so-called “middle generation.”

The Department of Homeland Security didn’t explain their actions. One can only surmise—and applaud.[..]Today, the MB still calls for “Building the Muslim state…Building the Khilafa…Mastering the world with Islam.”

MB spiritual
leader Yusuf Qaradawi, an Egyptian member of the European Council for
Fatwa and Research, likewise calls for an Islamic conquest of Europe
(starting with Rome and Italy). “[T]he patch of the Muslim state will
expand to cover the whole earth....,” he writes. Qaradawi also praises suicide bombing, readily accepts wife beating and calls upon Muslim women to detonate themselves in order to kill Jews.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, on Oct. 19, the Open Forum on The Muslim Brotherhood
nevertheless praised Helbawy and El Fotouh as peaceful moderates, and
their organization as a peaceful, just, and moderating influence on
Middle East and global politics. Their absence was yet another strike
against the Bush administration, executive director Karen Greenberg
stated. “This center tries to educate one another, policy makers and
the public,” she added—a job Greenberg apparently considers more
important than public security.

Former Sunday Times
senior reporter Nick Fielding then took the floor. He denied the risks
the MB poses to the West. Helbawy is “a wonderful human being,” he
stated, adding that the 2005 election of 22 Muslim Brothers to Egypt’s
parliament-and the Hamas victory in the January 2006 Palestinian
Authority votewere cause for celebration. Fielding objected only to
“the reward” Muslims received for their free elections-”the silence of
the U.S. State Department in the face of Egyptian government abuse,”
and the U.S. and international boycott of the Hamas-controlled PA.

The MB is
“reformist,” according to Fielding. It provides “the best possibility
in the Middle East of leaders who can make deals and stick to them,” he
stated, noting their solid political backing in Jordan, Tunisia,
Morocco, Algeria Kuwait and Yemen. The MB, he insisted, has “for the
past 30 years…[consistently] followed a non violent” path. The
brotherhood’s only problem, Fielding claimed, is its ostracization by
such analysts as “The Counterterrorism blog,” whose data he derided.

True democracy
would never take root in the Middle East, Fielding predicted. It’s
“about as likely as Shari’a being adopted in Washington D.C.,” he
joked.

Since then, Lappen has advised me that American Thinker has received
complaints from both Mr. Debat and Mr. Fielding as to her representations of
their comments.

It
is interesting, and ironic, that both Mr. Debat and Mr. Fielding accuse
me of leveraging their respective comments on the Muslim Brotherhood
for political gain, when their presentations were both so blatantly
political.

Indeed,
an altered, and shorter, version of Mr. Fielding’s ostensibly neutral
Oct. 19 analysis has been posted at the “official” Ikhwan
website. Presumably, he sent them this text. In any case, the
“official” Brotherhood apparently views Mr. Fielding’s remarks as a
political endorsement—similar to Democracy Now’s far-left political “analysis” of the MB’s purportedly softening line.

Everything on which I quoted Mr. Fielding, he said.

Unfortunately,
Mr. Fielding’s supposed “speech as it was delivered” is neither
complete nor a precise duplicate of his remarks. Possibly, the text he
provided to American Thinker and the “official” Ikhwan website
served as his outline. In any case, in his delivered remarks, Mr.
Fielding strayed from the above-cited text, and added many other points
besides. Certain of Mr. Fielding’s quoted statements hailed from the
question and answer period, which the above text also excludes.

And
some of those remarks—unaccountably not contained in the text of Mr.
Fielding’s “speech as it was delivered”— were also cited elsewhere. Mr.
Fielding not only described senior Muslim Brotherhood leader and Muslim
Association of Britain (MAB) founder Kamal Helbawy as a “wonderful
human being,” (as I reported), but also as a “voice of reason,” as he
was quoted in the New York Post. The New York Sun likewise reported on the panel’s praise for the MB and its absent speakers.

But
Mr. Fielding and Mr. Debat should not pretend to be vindicated by any
audio tape of the event, to be posted on the Center’s website( as
promised on Oct. 25) “before the end of the year at the latest”—unless
it is complete and unedited. But that may not be in the cards. Asked if
the Center would post the entire session, including the question and
answer period, a spokesman stated, “We are considering editing the
content,” a process that could easily also exclude many controversial
remarks that I quoted from the respective experts. The excuse is time
limitation, although streaming digital MP3 downloads are not limited by
time. Who is dishonest now?

In
another comment not documented above, Mr. Fielding stated, “Saudi
Arabia has never adopted the program of the Muslim Brotherhood.” On
this point, moderator Peter Bergen challenged him, noting that Saudi
Arabia opened its arms to the MB. Indeed, as I have previously reported
with Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, the kingdom granted the MB business
monopolies, while King Saud funded their establishment of the Islamic University in Medina.

Any
Muslim Brotherhood support for terrorism, Mr. Fielding later contended,
springs from “wayward connections.” Reports of MB terror financing
result from “over imaginative conclusions about how money moves,” he
argued. Mr. Fielding admitted that there are “a number of cases where
links [can be] seen,” yet he also avowed that the guilty parties in
such instances most likely were only “individuals involved.” He
concluded, “the Muslim Brotherhood is not a jihadist organization or
bent on the destruction of the West.”

The
question of whether Islam could politically dominate Europe within a
few decades, Mr. Fielding dismissed as “garbage”—“It’s just not true,”
he said. Citing Britain as a case in point, he estimated its current
Muslim population at “less than two million.” While first generation
migrants have a high birth rate, Mr. Fielding said that, barring “mass
conversion,” Britain will never be politically ruled by Islam—a point
that the audience greeted with laughter.

Mr.
Fielding stated that “sometimes the Muslim Brotherhood feels like the
Masons,” suggesting a parallel between the Islamist MB and the Freemasons, whose spiritual Masonic Order has been targeted by unfounded conspiracy theories and persecuted by totalitarian regimes. The MB undeniably backs jihad, terror and plans for global domination; the Masons, by contrast, merely open their doors to those interested in joining.

Finally,
Mr. Fielding indeed blamed the West’s refusal to recognize Shari’a law
in Islamic countries as a “reason for militancy.” He added, in citing
another scholar, that countering the spread of jihad organizations
requires the West “to address the grievances”—many of them
legitimate—of the jihadist movement. Furthermore, Mr Fielding
stated—another political comment—that the Muslim Brotherhood should be
“supported as strongly as possible” by the West.

If
these quotations sound “ludicrous” to Mr. Fielding, I would not
disagree. Therefore, he should be more careful when making statements
in public forums.

Lappen adds in her correspondence to me [emphasis mine];

As you will note in my reply to Mr. Fielding, I was very disturbed
Wednesday
to see a text he sent to the American Thinker, and apparently to the
official
Ikhwan website, which he claims is a copy of his speech. In fact, this
text
is NOT a precise transcript of his remarks, and it is dishonest for him to
claim otherwise. That may well be the text he wrote in advance of the
event,
but he veered from it; He added other comments (as do most speakers), and
expressed certain points in different language.
Moreover, upon checking with the NYU Center yesterday as to when a tape of
the event would be published, I was told it would be before the end of the
year, at the latest, but that the Center was "considering editing the
content." If this is true, this is even more disturbing.

Needless to say, it is unfair and unethical for either Mr. Debat or Mr.
Fielding to now deny having made statements they made, or having implied
their clear sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood. I took copious notes and
marked who said what, and there were hundreds of other witnesses to their
remarks as well.
While my analysis may not be one for which the speakers might have hoped,
others also reported on their support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Debat and Mr. Fielding have a right to their opinions. But in a
democratic society, at war with a totalitarian ideology, I daresay that
reporters, too

Mr. Debat and Mr. Fielding do indeed have a right to their opinion but they have no right to lie, deceive, and mislead an uninformed public. This is the way of Islam and the more people know about the NYU event the better.

The Muslim Brotherhood have a plan outlined here and here. ArcticGold did a YouTube vid on the Muslim Brotherhood project here.

Remember the prince who offered $10 million to
Rudolph Giuliani after the 9/11 attacks, and Giuliani turned down the money after the prince suggested U.S. policies
in the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks?

The Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown
University has been renamed after Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $20
million to its projects. And while that may be just the tail, the dog appears to
be moving away from its historic Catholic and Jesuit teaching philosophy too.

The Center's leaders say it now will be used to put on workshops
regarding Islam, fostering exchanges with the Muslim world, addressing U.S.
policy towards the Muslim world, working on the relationship of Islam and Arab
culture, addressing Muslim citizenship and civil liberties, and developing
exchange programs for students from the Muslim world.

The "Christian"
part of the center's projects at the university that has a history of 200 years
of higher education following its Christian founding, is conspicuous by its
absence in its website plans for its 10-year future.

But that won't be a
surprise to leaders of a number of Christian evangelical groups whose leaders
recently were told to leave the campus and not list Georgetown University as a
site for operations in the future.

Read the whole article.

Phyllis also emailed information on how to contact Georgetown
University:

"..President Bush should take firm control of his administration — first and foremost by curbing Rice and her State Department associates — and lead a concerted, unabashed diplomatic and public opinion offensive.

If Bush does this, he will gain wide public support and sufficient support from the international community to move ahead in the war. If Bush does not take control of his administration, the Vietnam War analogy will become an accurate one for Iraq, and Israel will find itself playing the role of Cambodia."

The one thing Caroline Glick understands as well as Israeli politics is American politics. And in this must read article, Glick calls Bush to task for not reeling in all those working against him in his own government. And there are many. Rogue agencies conspire to undo, undermine the Bush Doctrine.

While President clearly knows what he wants to do, he is hard pressed to succeed

A jihadi snuff film produced by an Iraqi group called the Islamic Army of Allah, and aired on CNN and on Wednesday in Israel, shows a jihadi sniper knocking off American soldiers one by one.

Being a propaganda flick whose goal is to demoralize Americans and their allies and recruit new soldiers to the army of jihad, not surprisingly, the video doesn't show how the US forces reacted to the sniper fire. The American forces in the film are powerless victims. If they are smart, they will cut and run before it is too late.

The video is effective because it effectively tells a complete lie. US forces in Iraq are far from helpless. They have won nearly every engagement they have fought with insurgent forces in Iraq. And their capabilities get better all the time.

Today, the public debate in the US revolves around one question: When are we leaving Iraq? The conventional wisdom has become that that US operations in Iraq are futile. Due in large part to politically driven press coverage, Americans have received the impression that the US cannot succeed in Iraq and that consequently, their leaders ought to be concentrating their efforts on building an exist strategy. Comparisons between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War are legion.

Last Wednesday, President George W. Bush was asked whether it is possible to make a comparison between the recent sharp rise in violence in Iraq and the Tet offensive in Vietnam in January 1968. Bush responded by noting that then as now, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."

And isn't that why the violence has escalated. The jihad is praying for a Democrat win.

During the Tet offensive, the North Vietnamese attacked forty South Vietnamese villages simultaneously with a massive force of 84,000 troops. The offensive failed utterly. 45,000 North Vietnamese soldiers were killed, no ground was taken. Yet, when then US president Lyndon Johnson declared victory, the American people didn't believe him.

Walter Cronkite, the all-powerful anchorman of the CBS evening news had told them that the US had lost the offensive. Who was the president to argue with Cronkite? In March 1968 Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection in the November election.

Same shit, different day.

So when the media wonders if one can compare the battles in Iraq today to the Tet offensive, what they really want to know is if they have successfully convinced the American public that its military has lost the war in Iraq.

Over the past several weeks, Bush has been waging a political offensive to convince the public that their military is winning the war in Iraq. On Wednesday, Bush gave a press conference on Iraq and later reinforced his message in a meeting with conservative columnists.

While Bush clearly knows what he wants to do, he is hard pressed to succeed. Not only are the Democrats and the media trying to undercut him, members of his own administration — and particularly Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her colleagues at the State Department — are subverting the President's agenda.

For example, there is Alberto Fernandez, the Director of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Fernandez's job is to defend the US in the Arabic media. Yet, in an interview with Al Jazeera last week, Fernandez said that the US had been "arrogant" and "stupid" in Iraq. In September he reportedly said that Americans and others "are trying intentionally to encourage hell in the Arab world."

Then there is Rice herself. Rather than promoting US victories in Iraq, Rice is turning the Iraqi government into a scapegoat for the ongoing jihad. If the government doesn't get its act together, she intimates, the US will feel free to wash its hands of the matter. It won't be a US defeat, but an Iraqi failure. That is, far from extolling American success, she is paving the way to justify an American defeat.

At the same time, rather than explain Iran's central role in the war, Rice courts the mullahs. Ignoring Iran's sponsorship of the Palestinians, Rice waxes poetic comparing the Palestinians — who chose Hamas to lead them — to the American founding fathers and to the civil rights movement.

Glick and I are on the same page concerning Condi. She has got to go. Right after the election.

On Wednesday Bush explained that the relative level of violence is not a determinate of victory or defeat because the enemy can use ceasefires to rearm. In his words, "If the absence of violence is victory, no one will ever win, because all that means is you've empowered a bunch of suiciders and thugs to kill."

Yet contrary to Bush's clear view on the matter, State Department officials work around the clock negotiating ceasefires. Indeed, one of the capstones of Rice's diplomatic efforts is the August ceasefire in Lebanon under which Israel is prevented from defending itself and Hizbullah is moving swiftly to rebuild its forces.

In Iraq, this dangerous penchant for negotiations is what enabled Muqtada al-Sadr's pro-Iranian, pro-Hizbullah Mahdi Army to emerge from its April 2004 offensive against Coalition forces intact and free to become the powerbroker in Shiite politics that it is today. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki felt it necessary to condemn the joint US-Iraqi attack against al-Sadr's forces in Baghdad Tuesday is a testament to al-Sadr's power.

al-Sadr should be pushing up opium poppies.

Today the only high-level US diplomat who believes that the purpose of diplomacy is to advance US national interests and not to achieve agreements for their own sake is US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. Just this week Bolton effectively prevented Venezuela from being elected to the Security Council.

Where is that goddamn Bolton vote? Was this the dhimmicrats plan all along? To stall, wait out the election in the hopes that they would take the House and/or Senate. NOT ONE DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE WOULD VOTE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE AND JUST ALLOW A VOTE. AMERICA! Is there a better man? Why isn't the Jewish lay leadership in America staging an all out campaign to get this man his rightful appointment? They remind me of the Jewish Council, or Judenrat, in Germany that helped expedite the process of Nazi final solution. Shame on you!

Rice does not support Bolton. According to Senate sources, Rice played a major role in preventing Bolton from receiving Senate confirmation for his appointment. As a result, he will likely be forced to leave the UN next month.

She has got to go.

Rice's machinations have made her popular with the media. But her popularity comes at the expense of public and international support for the US's war goals. Her actions and those of her State Department colleagues have contributed to the anomalous situation where while US forces improved their capabilities in Iraq, the American public became convinced that the war is going badly. Rather than fearing the US, Iran, Syria and North Korea behave as though the US is a paper tiger. Rather than support America, European "allies" increasingly see their national interests best served by distancing themselves from the US as much as possible.

The situation can be reversed. The media is no longer the power it was in Cronkite's day. Were the administration to challenge the networks, the networks would be forced to adjust their coverage to reality.[...]For Israel, the results of the American debate over the future of the war in Iraq are of critical importance. A US retreat will place Israel in grave danger. The eastern front, whose demise the military "experts" were quick to announce in 2003 to justify slashing the defense budget, will make a comeback — replete with massive quantities of arms and tens of thousands of trained jihadi soldiers who will believe that they just won their jihad against the US. Moreover, if the US retreats, the IDF will find itself facing a US-armed and trained Shiite army. That is, if the US withdraws, Israel could potentially find itself facing an enemy force better trained and equipped than the IDF.

The leaders of the Democratic Party today compete amongst themselves to see who can be more defeatist. If in the November 7 elections the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress, or even just one of them, the push for a US retreat will grow stronger.

Whatever the results of the elections, Israel must hope that for his last two years in office, President Bush will take firm control of his administration — first and foremost by curbing Rice and her State Department associates — and lead a concerted, unabashed diplomatic and public opinion offensive.

If Bush does this, he will gain wide public support and sufficient support from the international community to move ahead in the war. If Bush does not take control of his administration, the Vietnam War analogy will become an accurate one for Iraq, and Israel will find itself playing the role of Cambodia.

"If the Muslims of America believe that they don't want Bush to have a
free hand for the next two years, then the Muslims of America need to
get organized and make sure they get out to vote for Democrats for
both the House and the Senate. Every Muslim in the Middle East who has a relative in the U.S. should get the message across to their
relatives. They need to make sure that all their friends vote against
Bush."

The American TV station that broadcasts JIHAD SERMONS ON U.S. TV here is urging Americans to vote for the DEMOCRATICS;

Bridges TV, the first English-language American-Muslim TV network, is
expanding into six states and creating a potential audience of nearly
2 million.The network, which began broadcasting in the Buffalo, N.Y., area in
November 2004, offers a mix of entertainment, sports, news, and
documentaries.

Its mission statement declares that the network seeks "to improve the
image of Muslims in the United States" and to "offer a unique
perspective on the Middle East and the war on terrorism."

ha!

But in a recent interview, one of its hosts criticized the "Jewish
lobby" in the U.S. and called on American Muslims to vote for
Democrats in November.

Other examples of the network's "unique perspective" include these
offerings, according to The New York Sun: A religious figure who appeared on Oct. 3 asserted that Muslims have a
duty to increase the percentage of Americans who are Muslims from 2
percent to 50 percent, and recommended that Shariah, or Islamic law,
be implemented in American courts.
The next day, Bridges TV aired a speech by Muslim scholar Jamal
Badawi, who in an interview raised questions about who was really
behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks and suggested that Americans could
be responsible for car bombings in Iraqi markets.
That same day, Imam Mohammad Alo Elahi was a guest on a news program,
"Talking Points." According to his Web site, Elahi was a spiritual
leader in Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian navy, and has met with the
spiritual adviser of the Hezbollah terror organization.
On Oct. 5, listeners heard an anti-Jewish, anti-Christian sermon that
included the call, "May God destroy them!"
A Koranic verse broadcast on Oct. 9 praised martyrdom.
One of the stars of Bridges TV is Donald "Skip" Conover, a co-founder
of the health care company CBay Inc. He hosts and produces a show
called "Words Matter," and was the subject of an article in the Saudi
daily Arab News in September.

In the article, Conover discussed the power of the "Jewish lobby" and
called on Muslims to vote for the Democrats, the Sun reported.

"I have news for the Muslim community," he said. "All American
politicians are in the pocket of the Jewish lobby today because they
control a lot of money, and they spend a lot of money in politics.

The neocon zionist Jewish lobby. Blame the Jooooooooooooos!

Steven Stalinsky, executive director of the Middle East Media Research
Institute, writes in the Sun: "Bridges TV claims that its `major
purpose' is `to build bridges between American Muslims and other
Americans.' After viewing the channel, I find this highly unlikely."

Aiding Islamic jihad, passing messages between Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and Islamic Jihad. George Soros paid for some of her defense.She aided Islamic terror. She abetted Islamic terror. She was found guilty of Islamic terror. She got 28 MONTHS. Could have gotten 30 years. 30 years, 28 months.
Stewart, along with co-defendants and co-workers Ahmed Abdel Sattar and
Mohammed Yousry, was found guilty of helping her 1995 client, Sheik Omar
Abdel
Rahman, communicate with his Egyptian-based organization, the Islamic
Group.

"Civil rights" lawyer Lynne Stewart was
sentenced to 28 months in prison on a terrorism charge Monday for
helping an Egyptian sheik communicate with his followers on the outside. FOX News

Shame on FOX News using the term civil rights (quotation marks are mine.)

The Socialist reported here that the Democrat (Clinton appointed) Judge Judge John G. Koeltl continually reminded prospective jurors that Stewart’s trial on
charges of aiding and abetting terrorism had nothing to do with the
public
hearings a few blocks away that were being conducted by the
“independent”
federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror bombing of the
World
Trade Center. It had everything to do with it. Everything.

During the trial, Koeltl agreed with defense lawyers that the
federal statute forbidding the provision of material support or resources
to a designated terrorist group, 18. U.S.C. §2339B, was unconstitutionally
vague as applied to Ms. Stewart and her co-defendants.

The judge in United States v. Sattar, 02 Cr. 395, also dismissed a
conspiracy count based on that same law, leaving Ms. Stewart facing the two
least-serious charges leveled against her in an indictment issued last
year: making false statements and conspiring to defraud the government. NY Law Journal

Back in early September, I wrote of the anti-America, jihad loving bias of YouTube here and more here. Well they are getting $eriously empowered. They flag anything anti-jihad, like this.

Well the battle for the hearts, minds and future of the Ameican people has taken a hit. A big one.

Add it all up, and with its
pending buyout of YouTube as announced on October 9,
Google, with its billions
of dollars worth of market cap ($130 billion as of October 13!), now has the
money and the vehicle to impact public opinion like no other e-company. This is
crucial, for the Internet has become a significantly more important political
resource in recent years. American Thinker 10/16/06, see below

Five months ago, the
Internet’s top search engine Google was accused of banning conservative websites
from its news crawl. Last week, the e-behemoth offered to purchase YouTube, the
preeminent provider of videos over the Web that has recently been implicated in
censorship of its own. With their pending merger, serious questions arise about
the future of the most powerful telecommunications medium on the landscape, and
who if anyone is trying to control its content.

As reported by American Thinker on May
22, Internet search king Google eliminated a number of conservative e-zines and
blogs from its news crawl earlier this year. In all of the cases cited, the
alleged offense was the dissemination of “hate speech.”

After closer examination,
the tie between all the banished websites was the publishing of articles about
radical Islam and its relation to international terrorism. Yet, sites that
actually were more specifically involved in such activities – like Hezb’allah’s
propaganda arm in Lebanon, al Manar – were unaffected by Google’s “hate speech”
policies, and continue to be a part of its news crawl.

The Liberal Bias
Virus: Coming Soon to a Computer Near You

Now, five months later, the
web’s leading video-sharing portal YouTube has been implicated for demonstrating
a similar hypocrisy in its business practices. In the past several weeks, some
leading conservative websites have had videos pulled and their accounts closed.

MyPetJawa is calling for an attack on jihadi videos on YouTube. This is definitely the right approach—if the jihadis and their leftist sycophants are so comforted by YouTube's controls that they can flag anti-jihadi videos, then why can't we do the same?

So, there are a few things we can do to fight back against
MartyrdomTube. I'll keep the details posted on the main page for now,
but as it gets longer, I'll probably fold the details off into the
extended article. Good luck, everyone!

Watch this video. This is the battle in November. Consider this my second election VLOG, It's better than anything I could ever dream up.. This is more over at Newsbusters here.

The first lesson came when Affleck had the gall to suggest that Iran and
North Korea “became more evil after” President Bush made his Axis of Evil speech
during the 2002 State of the Union address (emphasis mine):

In terms of the history of Iran, you had a fairly reform-minded guy who
then was followed by Ahmadinejad because here, we’re a little afraid, we
don’t know culturally how to reach out to the United States, and then you
hear “Axis of Evil,” and that only emboldens the reactionary, the far-right
within Iran(side chatter). In terms of North Korea, you know, they
had their nuclear program, there were, you know, inspectors there, it was taped
up, there were cameras, as soon as they heard “Axis of Evil,” boom, the
inspectors were thrown out, the cameras were turned off, and they began resuming
this program. And, I think it’s a sign of how this kind of bellicose,
one-linerisms in politics have consequences.

The fruits of the left. FDD's Claudia Rosett visited the enemy combatant detention facility Guantamo. Heads up, you will be enraged. She
writes:

What we saw is a place so steeped in political correctness that it
comes close to caricature. Make no mistake: The detainees occupy cells in a
high-security facility. But almost every room has an arrow on the floor pointing
to Mecca. Signs demanding silence stand ready for prayer time. Korans are
cradled in surgical masks. Detainees are interrogated while sitting on sofas or
cushioned reclining chairs.

They choose from a halal menu including such
home-style treats as dates and baklava. Doctors, dentists and psychiatrists
(offering confidential counseling) are on 24-hour call. Good behavior is
rewarded with access to board games, books and communal areas, including more
time in recreational yards -- where we saw a group of detainees chatting around
a table, while one of their cohorts nearby, at leisurely speed in the afternoon
heat, pedaled an exercise bike.

An officer tells me that earlier this
year Guantanamo was buying bottled water that had an American flag on the label.
Lest this upset the detainees, base personnel were put to work stripping off the
labels.